📄 rfc840.txt
字号:
OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIFPostel [Page 8] RFC 840 April 1983 Official Protocols Stream Protocol (ST) STATUS: Experimental SPECIFICATION: IEN 119 COMMENTS: The implementation of this protocol has evolved and may no longer be consistent with this specification. The document should be updated and issued as an RFC. Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol CONTACT: Forgie@BBN Network Voice Protocol (NVP-II) STATUS: Experimental SPECIFICATION: RFC xxx COMMENTS: The specification is an ISI Internal Memo which should be updated and issued as an RFC. Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol CONTACT: Casner@USC-ISIBPostel [Page 9] RFC 840 April 1983 Official ProtocolsApplication Level Telnet Protocol (TELNET) STATUS: Recommended SPECIFICATION: RFC 764 (in IPTW) COMMENTS: A few minor typographical errors should be corrected and some clarification of the SYNCH mechanism should be made. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Telnet Options (TELNET) Number Name RFC NIC APH USE ------ ------------------------------------ --- ----- --- --- 0 Binary Transmission ... 15389 yes yes 1 Echo ... 15390 yes yes 2 Reconnection ... 15391 yes no 3 Suppress Go Ahead ... 15392 yes yes 4 Approximate Message Size Negotiation ... 15393 yes no 5 Status 651 31154 yes yes 6 Timing Mark ... 16238 yes yes 7 Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 726 39237 yes no 8 Output Line Width ... 20196 yes no 9 Output Page Size ... 20197 yes no 10 Output Carriage-Return Disposition 652 31155 yes no 11 Output Horizontal Tabstops 653 31156 yes no 12 Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 654 31157 yes no 13 Output Formfeed Disposition 655 31158 yes no 14 Output Vertical Tabstops 656 31159 yes no 15 Output Vertical Tab Disposition 657 31160 yes no 16 Output Linefeed Disposition 658 31161 yes no 17 Extended ASCII 698 32964 yes no 18 Logout 727 40025 yes no 19 Byte Macro 735 42083 yes no 20 Data Entry Terminal 732 41762 yes no 21 SUPDUP 734 736 42213 yes no 22 SUPDUP Output 749 45449 no no 23 Send Location 779 ----- no no 255 Extended-Options-List ... 16239 yes yesPostel [Page 10] RFC 840 April 1983 Official Protocols STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: (in APH) COMMENTS: There is an open question about some of these. Most of the options are implemented by so few hosts that perhaps they should be eliminated. These should all be studied and the useful ones reissued as RFCs. The last column (USE) of the table above indicates which options are in general use. The following are recommended: Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options List. Many of these must be revised for use with TCP. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Telnet CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF File Transfer Protocol (FTP) STATUS: Recommended SPECIFICATION: RFC 765 (in IPTW) COMMENTS: There are a number of minor corrections to be made. A major change is the deletion of the mail commands, and a major clarification is needed in the discussion of the management of the data connection. Also, a suggestion has been made to include some directory manipulation commands (RFC 775). Eventhough the MAIL features are defined in this document, they are not to be used. The SMTP protocol is to be used for all mail service in the Internet. Data Connection Management: a. Default Data Connection Ports: All FTP implementations must support use of the default data connection ports, and only the User-PI may initiate the use of non-default ports.Postel [Page 11] RFC 840 April 1983 Official Protocols b. Negotiating Non-Default Data Ports: The User-PI may specify a non-default user side data port with the PORT command. The User-PI may request the server side to identify a non-default server side data port with the PASV command. Since a connection is defined by the pair of addresses, either of these actions is enough to get a different data connection, still it is permitted to do both commands to use new ports on both ends of the data connection. c. Reuse of the Data Connection: When using the stream mode of data transfer the end of the file must be indicated by closing the connection. This causes a problem if multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due to need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time out period to guarantee the reliable communication. Thus the connection can not be reopened at once. There are two solutions to this problem. The first is to negotiate a non-default port (as in (b) above). The second is to use another transfer mode. A comment on transfer modes. The stream transfer mode is inherently unreliable, since one can not determine if the connection closed prematurely or not. The other transfer modes (Block, Compressed) do not close the connection to indicate the end of file. They have enough FTP encoding that the data connection can be parsed to determine the end of the file. Thus using these modes one can leave the data connection open for multiple file transfers. Why this was not a problem with the old NCP FTP: The NCP was designed with only the ARPANET in mind. The ARPANET provides very reliable service, and the NCP counted on it. If any packet of data from an NCP connection were lost or damaged by the network the NCP could not recover. It is a tribute to the ARPANET designers that the NCP FTP worked so well. The TCP is designed to provide reliable connections over many different types of networks and interconnections of networks. TCP must cope with a set of networks that can not promise to work as well as the ARPANET. TCP must make its own provisions for end-to-end recovery from lost or damaged packets. This leads to the need for the connection phase-down time-out. The NCP never had to deal with acknowledgements or retransmissions or many otherPostel [Page 12] RFC 840 April 1983 Official Protocols things the TCP must do to make connection reliable in a more complex world. LIST and NLST: There is some confusion about the LIST an NLST commands, and what is appropriate to return. Some clarification and motivation for these commands should be added to the specification. OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 678 - Document File Format Standards DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: RFC 783 (in IPTW) COMMENTS: No known problems with this specification. This is in use in several local networks. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) STATUS: Recommended SPECIFICATION: RFC 821 COMMENTS: This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 788 (in IPTW) is obsolete. There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the earlyPostel [Page 13] RFC 840 April 1983 Official Protocols implementations. Some documentation of these problems can be found in the file [ISIF]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS. Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 should be resolved. OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 822 - Mail Header Format Standards This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 733 (in IPTW) is obsolete. Further revision of RFC 822 is needed to correct some minor errors in the details of the specification. DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Remote Job Entry (RJE) STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: RFC 407 (in APH) COMMENTS: Some changes needed for use with TCP. No known active implementations. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIFPostel [Page 14] RFC 840 April 1983 Official Protocols Remote Job Service (NETRJS) STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: RFC 740 (in APH) COMMENTS: Used with the UCLA IBM OS system. Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. Revision in progress. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Braden@USC-ISIA Remote Telnet Service STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: RFC 818 COMMENTS: OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Graphics Protocol STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: NIC 24308 (in APH) COMMENTS: Very minor changes needed for use with TCP. No known active implementations. OTHER REFERENCES:Postel [Page 15] RFC 840 April 1983 Official Protocols DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Echo Protocol STATUS: Recommended SPECIFICATION: RFC 347 COMMENTS: This specification should be revised for use with TCP and reissued.⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -